webhooks_delete_message

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by specifying the 'DESTRUCTIVE - IRREVERSIBLE' nature, the lack of an Authorization header, the need for __confirm:true and MCP_DRY_RUN=false to actually delete, and the return shape. These are actionable behavioral details not present in the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with bolded sections (Purpose, When to use, Auth, Returns) and is concise. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose and destructiveness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive webhook operation, the description covers the purpose, trigger conditions, auth specifics, return value, and the mandatory confirmation flow. It is nearly complete, but it does not mention typical edge cases (e.g., message not found, rate limits) or explicitly guide towards alternative tools in different auth contexts. Given the output schema presence, this is sufficient but not perfect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats some parameter details already in the schema (token as secret, __confirm behavior, MCP_DRY_RUN), but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond that. It is simply redundant with the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Delete a message previously sent by this webhook.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like messages_delete or webhooks_delete_with_token, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear 'When to use' section with concrete examples (retract stale alerts or accidentally posted content). This gives context but does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.